Buying Studio Monitors - Go Big or Go home?

[Deudermont]

Hey guys, I've been searching around the internet a bit for some good speakers for listening enjoyment. I read a bit about the Hi-Fi vs Pro debate, most of it is centred around whether you can use Hi-Fi stuff for monitoring, rather than whether using Pro stuff for Hi-Fi listening enjoyment. Which is pretty funny because Hi-Fi stands for high fidelity, if the Hi-Fi stuff makes the music sound good (rich? colored?) then it isn't high fidelity to begin with.

Anyway I found an online website called Vintagekings and I'm deciding between the Adam AX series and the Focal CMSs. Each brand has their own sizes.

A3X vs CMS 40 ($299 vs $450)
A5X vs CMS 50 ($450 vs $595)
A7X vs CMS 65 ($599 vs $895)

Also if I buy the AXs I'll also buy an Adam Sub7 $550 subwoofer to complement them. The Focal CMS Subs $995 is out of my financial league.

Lets face it, my choice is almost is made for me towards the AXs for money reasons. But I am willing to spend on the Focals if that prevents me from buying something I won't enjoy.

The AX series has a much higher frequency response compared to the Focals, for example A7X's 42hz-50Khz VS Focal CMS65's 45hz - 28 khz. On paper the AX series are the logical choice. But I am worried about those higher frequencies causing listening fatigue - a 50khz top range is not a bad thing in itself but if I'm worried that all the poorly mastered music coming from CDs today (Ref Article: The Loudness War) will not result in a good listening experience for me. On the flip side, why should I even worry about these things at all? - I cannot hear above 17.XXX khz anyway! Then you get the debate that higher frequency sounds can be subtly felt and not heard (think of the eerie music they use in certain films, you might not be able to hear those frequencies, but you definitely feel uncomfortable).

Go Big or Go home?

I'm worried about picking the wrong sized speakers for my Apartment (Rectangle shaped) the living room is about 60metres squared and I'm on nearly one end of the rectangle, then again I shouldn't worry since I'm going to be using them for nearfield listening anyway right? Next thing you know I'm worried about missing out a few lower frequencies about 5-15hz by picking the smaller A3xs. But the Sub7 will take care of that won't it?

Anyway I'm just a newbie who's done too much internet research for his own good. Please offer your opinions about which would be better for my listening enjoyment. I prefer clarity in voices and lifelikeness in instruments as opposed to deep thumping bass that overrides it all.

PS: Also intend on hooking up DAC to the monitors and subwoofer. But I haven't seen any DACs with subwoofer outputs. I can't get high resolution pictures of the back panels of those monitors, are the monitors supposed to pass the sound signal to the subwoofer through some connection, or does that have to come from a separate subwoofer output from my source? Halp!

 

[highfigh]

Hey guys, I've been searching around the internet a bit for some good speakers for listening enjoyment. I read a bit about the Hi-Fi vs Pro debate, most of it is centred around whether you can use Hi-Fi stuff for monitoring, rather than whether using Pro stuff for Hi-Fi listening enjoyment. Which is pretty funny because Hi-Fi stands for high fidelity, if the Hi-Fi stuff makes the music sound good (rich? colored?) then it isn't high fidelity to begin with.

Anyway I found an online website called Vintagekings and I'm deciding between the Adam AX series and the Focal CMSs. Each brand has their own sizes.

A3X vs CMS 40 ($299 vs $450)
A5X vs CMS 50 ($450 vs $595)
A7X vs CMS 65 ($599 vs $895)

Also if I buy the AXs I'll also buy an Adam Sub7 $550 subwoofer to complement them. The Focal CMS Subs $995 is out of my financial league.

Lets face it, my choice is almost is made for me towards the AXs for money reasons. But I am willing to spend on the Focals if that prevents me from buying something I won't enjoy.

The AX series has a much higher frequency response compared to the Focals, for example A7X's 42hz-50Khz VS Focal CMS65's 45hz - 28 khz. On paper the AX series are the logical choice. But I am worried about those higher frequencies causing listening fatigue - a 50khz top range is not a bad thing in itself but if I'm worried that all the poorly mastered music coming from CDs today (Ref Article: The Loudness War) will not result in a good listening experience for me. On the flip side, why should I even worry about these things at all? - I cannot hear above 17.XXX khz anyway! Then you get the debate that higher frequency sounds can be subtly felt and not heard (think of the eerie music they use in certain films, you might not be able to hear those frequencies, but you definitely feel uncomfortable).

Go Big or Go home?

I'm worried about picking the wrong sized speakers for my Apartment (Rectangle shaped) the living room is about 60metres squared and I'm on nearly one end of the rectangle, then again I shouldn't worry since I'm going to be using them for nearfield listening anyway right? Next thing you know I'm worried about missing out a few lower frequencies about 5-15hz by picking the smaller A3xs. But the Sub7 will take care of that won't it?

Anyway I'm just a newbie who's done too much internet research for his own good. Please offer your opinions about which would be better for my listening enjoyment. I prefer clarity in voices and lifelikeness in instruments as opposed to deep thumping bass that overrides it all.

PS: Also intend on hooking up DAC to the monitors and subwoofer. But I haven't seen any DACs with subwoofer outputs. I can't get high resolution pictures of the back panels of those monitors, are the monitors supposed to pass the sound signal to the subwoofer through some connection, or does that have to come from a separate subwoofer output from my source? Halp!

Before you get all philosophical about what constitutes HiFi, think about what makes a speaker good for studio monitoring. It's not that they're necessarily the most accurate, smooth, extended or easy to listen to for long periods. It's because they reveal the faults of the recording. Once those faults are revealed, they can be addressed and the mastering can begin. If you get a chance, listen to the Yamaha NS-10. They're in a huge number of studios and few think they sound good, or great but that's not the reason they all have them- it's so a producer or mixing/ recording engineer can go from one studio to another and have a bit of consistency. The console, effects, preamps and room will be different from place to place but if the monitors are the same, it removes one big variable.

Define 'near-field'. It doesn't mean listening in a small room- it means listening at close range, often with the speakers on the meter bridge of a mixing console or table, to minimize the sonic characteristics of the room.

 

[ski2xblack]

Re: 'go big or go home'

If you are anywhere beyond true 'near-field' distances, bigger is definitely better if your space can accomodate it.

Regarding highfigh's comments, I don't see why a studio monitor would be any less desireable than a consumer piece; accurate sound is accurate sound, after all. The aesthetics of the pro-audio gear leaves a little to be desired compared to consumer gear, but performance is another story. Some of the active/powered studio monitors are outrageously good values, easily outclassing many consumer products on a bang/buck scale. (I'm thinking of the Behringer's which receive frequent recommendations here at AH, for example, and it only gets better as you move up the pro-audio food chain.)

 

[Deudermont]

Well to me high fidelity means true to the source, though that sounds quite vague since the source itself might not be true. Well maybe it means the speaker should put out audio that sounds just like the audio recording you fed it.

I guess what I mean is I want something with the qualities you just mentioned Highfigh - "accurate, smooth, extended or easy to listen to for long periods". Easier said than done however ><.

Yea, that's what I thought too about nearfield listening, size doesn't matter for these speakers because I'm going to have my speakers on my desktop anyway.

Thanks for setting me a little straight guys, though I'm still not too sure which system I want yet...

I did a bit more reading on the subwoofer issue I mentioned, turns out I need to find a DAC with TWO sets of XLR outputs which is pretty rare. I could settle for a Benchmark or Bel Canto DAC where I could use the RCA outputs but that doesn't seem right to me - I think the subwoofer could go slightly out of sync. Oh and I do recognize the irony of using a DAC upsampler for Hifi purposes lol.

Any ideas for that too along with which monitors I should pick?

ski2xblack: The Adams look hideous imo, maybe I should just get the Focals and call it a day...still ...I lose that high frequency response the Adams offer.

 

[highfigh]

If you are anywhere beyond true 'near-field' distances, bigger is definitely better if your space can accomodate it.

Regarding highfigh's comments, I don't see why a studio monitor would be any less desireable than a consumer piece; accurate sound is accurate sound, after all. The aesthetics of the pro-audio gear leaves a little to be desired compared to consumer gear, but performance is another story. Some of the active/powered studio monitors are outrageously good values, easily outclassing many consumer products on a bang/buck scale. (I'm thinking of the Behringer's which receive frequent recommendations here at AH, for example, and it only gets better as you move up the pro-audio food chain.)

The recording process is an illusion. It's recorded, processed and mixed to sound a specific way and unless we were there when it was mastered, we'll never hear it the way it sounded on that occasion. Ever. We have an idea of how instruments sound- some have a better idea than others because they're around live instruments more but other than the fact that it was recorded in a room full of air and we happen to listen to it in a room full of air. The rest of the whole picture is completely different unless we have a favorite studio/mastering facility and we have a listening room set up exactly the same. That's all we can do to replicate the experience. What we need to do is find speakers that fit our ears and our ideas of how things should sound- if we base our decision on specs alone, we can end up with equipment that we hate to listen to music through.

At least we'd be secure in our knowledge that the specs are great but at the end of the day, that doesn't matter as much as whether we can stand the sound.

Listen to a series of albums and CDs- do you hear differences in how the instruments were recorded? I mean, can you hear differences in the attack of the notes, the decay of the sound, do you hear that one producer will make an instrument sound like it's in front of the speakers, at the plane of the speakers or behind them? How about a rock, jazz, pop or other music with a drum set- do the drums have a softer attack? Do the cymbals shimmer sweetly? Is the sound well-balanced from one drum to the next? If these are true, they have been made to sound that way because they don't when you're right next to them.

If listening to even 5 CDs or albums doesn't reveal obvious differences, there are only a couple of reasons- the system isn't capable of revealing them or the listener doesn't/can't listen critically. For those who just say "Music is to be enjoyed, not analyzed", that's true. However, some of us like to analyze it in every possible detail.

As far as accurate sound- many of the monitors used for classic albums were far from accurate. They don't use only one model or brand, either. If they only used the biggest and best dedicated monitors that are designed only for studios, almost nobody would like the sound. They mix for what people use most for playback. That means in the '50s, they mixed for AM radio and small phonographs. In the early '60s, they started doing more in stereo. The late '60s brought different sounds and effects because musicians were experimenting a lot and also because more people had a better system. The '70s brought better sound because of the average level of system quality. The '80s brought a growth of interest in having a good car stereo or a boombox, so they mixed for those. You know what they mix for now? iPods with freakin' ear buds.

 

[highfigh]

Well to me high fidelity means true to the source, though that sounds quite vague since the source itself might not be true. Well maybe it means the speaker should put out audio that sounds just like the audio recording you fed it.

I guess what I mean is I want something with the qualities you just mentioned Highfigh - "accurate, smooth, extended or easy to listen to for long periods". Easier said than done however ><.

Yea, that's what I thought too about nearfield listening, size doesn't matter for these speakers because I'm going to have my speakers on my desktop anyway.

Thanks for setting me a little straight guys, though I'm still not too sure which system I want yet...

I did a bit more reading on the subwoofer issue I mentioned, turns out I need to find a DAC with TWO sets of XLR outputs which is pretty rare. I could settle for a Benchmark or Bel Canto DAC where I could use the RCA outputs but that doesn't seem right to me - I think the subwoofer could go slightly out of sync. Oh and I do recognize the irony of using a DAC upsampler for Hifi purposes lol.

Any ideas for that too along with which monitors I should pick?

ski2xblack: The Adams look hideous imo, maybe I should just get the Focals and call it a day...still ...I lose that high frequency response the Adams offer.

If you plan to use your computer as your source, look at the Dynaudio monitors at Guitar Center. They aren't cheap but they are used in a growing number of studios, including Peter Gabriel's and the BBC. The last link shows that Avatar was developed through Dynaudio speakers.

Some users:
http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/prof/users.php

More details:
http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/prof/air.php

http://www.dynaudio.com/eng/prof/acoustics.php

http://www.dynaudioacoustics.com/

 

[TopQuark]

I would wait to listen to the AX series. The S1X, with the new XART tweeters, was said to provide significantly better highs and not fatiguing as the older ART tweeters. I have not heard the Focals although I have read a lot of great reviews about them also.

I am fond of transparency and imaging. I A/B'ed several monitors in a local Guitar Center with all the monitors there except Focals. The closest to the A7 is the Mackie but it is little more mid centric. KRK, Yamaha, DynAudio, M-Audio, Beresford, etc. made up the rest. After listening, I prefer the Adams for overall presentation particularly with respect to the depth of the overall stage like 3D imaging. I can see why some people said the highs sounds thin. There is a slight edge on some high notes at high volume. Since I have a warm and smooth DAC, I am not too much worried about it.

It looks like Adam is down shifting the older ART based monitors to the new XART monitors. For instance, the specs of the new A5X is now very close to the A7. I would think the new A5X will sound closer to A7 than the older A5. Anyway, I am looking forward on the A5X for its size as a desktop monitor. To me, As they are now, the Adams are hard to beat.

 

[davidtwotrees]

I own the Quad 12L Active Monitors. I am totally pleased with them. The sq is great. The asthetics are amazing, I own the Cherry wood finish. The gloss lacquer is amazing. I bought them on Amazon from realdeal or reeldeel electronics. Just a thought

 

[lsiberian]

A good speaker for home will typically have good off-axis response. In a studio this isn't necessary because most listening is done near field. However, A good speaker is a good speaker. I suggest you forget the pro and home distinction. Instead go for the best of both world's.

 

[randyb]

A good speaker for home will typically have good off-axis response. In a studio this isn't necessary because most listening is done near field. However, A good speaker is a good speaker. I suggest you forget the pro and home distinction. Instead go for the best of both world's.

I concur. Nomenclature may not mean that much. Maybe Sean Olive will drop by to let us know his thoughts on say the JBL LSR pro series for home theater. I have already heard Tom Nousaines thoughts (and his practice) and since the recent test of Linkwitz speakers came against some Behringer 2031A or 2030A I think labeling is less important than comprehensive measurements. A good speaker is a good speaker regardless of labels.

 

[Deudermont]

Well then...the AX series seems to top out in measurements compared to their Focal counterparts. Seems like the rational choice on paper. I guess they're both good speakers, I'm just trying to find out which one might suit me more.

The high freq response makes me worry though, can it cause listening fatigue?

 

[AJinFLA]

the living room is about 60metres squared

That's a pretty large room, especially for an apartment. How wide?

I'm on nearly one end of the rectangle, then again I shouldn't worry since I'm going to be using them for nearfield listening anyway right?

That depends. The closer you are, the less the reverberant field imposes on the sound, but that also depends on where the speakers are in the room. It seems that as long as you can keep them a few feet (2+) off the front (facing) wall, you should be well away from any early reflective surface, which is typically the side walls.
Then there is the issue of "bass" and "apartment". Sitting (very) nearfield will certainly help there, both from a SPL (propagation loss) and room modal effects standpoint. The larger sized (main) speakers will allow a lower XO and hence easier phase integration.

cheers,

AJ

 

[TopQuark]

Well then...the AX series seems to top out in measurements compared to their Focal counterparts. Seems like the rational choice on paper. I guess they're both good speakers, I'm just trying to find out which one might suit me more.

The high freq response makes me worry though, can it cause listening fatigue?

The specs only tells you how low or how high it will go or provide data on degree of accuracy at a certain Hz. It doesn't tell you the sound signature that is unique to every brand.

If you read the reviews of the A5 and A7 in message boards, very few will say it cause them listening fatigue. But then, if you ask them what type of music they want, they like rock and dance or music with booming sound. If you read online reviews by pros, there is no listening fatigue there.

I suggest that you should listen to the current A5 or A7 lineup. The new AX series can only be better. The S1X with XART tweeters solves the problem of that slight edge on some high notes to people who have experience with them. But then, it all depends what DAC you are using.

I will have to find a place to listen to the Focals but in no way I will be able to A/B it against the Adam's because the retailers are different - Guitar Center against Apple Store. One thing for sure, of all the dome tweeters I have heard on at least 5 manufacturers, nothing comes close to the Heil tweeters in the A7 in terms of true-to-life listening. The Focals are the last monitors I will try to convince me otherwise.

 

[TLS Guy]

A good speaker for home will typically have good off-axis response. In a studio this isn't necessary because most listening is done near field. However, A good speaker is a good speaker. I suggest you forget the pro and home distinction. Instead go for the best of both world's.

You have that right.

Really their is a chasm in what are regarded as monitor speakers in the pop and classical worlds.

The speakers used to monitor pop and a lot of movies are not very good in my view.

If you look at the best classical labels and their equipment, then very few speakers consistently show up.

The first two.

The ATC EL 150 at $54,000 dollars per pair.

The B & W 800D.

The Quad ESL 63 and its modern incarnation the ESL 2905.

This one all so shows up, but not as commonly as the rest and mainly on channel classics.

A number of exotic custom designs also show up.

I would regard the first three as my pick as the top three commercial speakers available in the world. I have no experience of the forth.

I was accused yesterday of living in a rarerified world. That is as may be, but do really bring the world of orchestral, choral, chamber music and opera alive you have to. So I plead guilty as charged.

 

[lsiberian]

You have that right.

Really their is a chasm in what are regarded as monitor speakers in the pop and classical worlds.

The speakers used to monitor pop and a lot of movies are not very good in my view.

If you look at the best classical labels and their equipment, then very few speakers consistently show up.

The first two.

The ATC EL 150 at $54,000 dollars per pair.

The B & W 800D.

The Quad ESL 63 and its modern incarnation the ESL 2905.

This one all so shows up, but not as commonly as the rest and mainly on channel classics.

A number of exotic custom designs also show up.

I would regard the first three as my pick as the top three commercial speakers available in the world. I have no experience of the forth.

I was accused yesterday of living in a rarerified world. That is as may be, but do really bring the world of orchestral, choral, chamber music and opera alive you have to. So I plead guilty as charged.

As I age I've learned to appreciate the different genre's. I know youth is all about differentiating your culture from previous ones, but there is nothing like being part of a live orchestra and choir each week. Far too much emphasis is placed on individuals in our society and things like choir and team sports are good for promoting the teamwork we'll need to survive the coming centuries.

 

[Loren42]

Well then...the AX series seems to top out in measurements compared to their Focal counterparts. Seems like the rational choice on paper. I guess they're both good speakers, I'm just trying to find out which one might suit me more.

The high freq response makes me worry though, can it cause listening fatigue?

Frequency response is not a highly important factor in selection, so don't get hung up on that spec. The important factors like impedance curves, waterfall charts, polar responses, distortion, resonances, and transient responses are more important. However, few manufactures will post that information, so the user is left to either audition them for themselves or rely on professional reviews that test the speakers for us.

Notice that I did not include flatness in the mix because it isn't that important. Again, its a game of specsmanship when the primary sales data about a system is the frequency response and its ±dB deviation.

Lastly, do not underestimate your room as a factor. Room acoustics can make the best system sound horrible or even a modest system sound great.